iq test questions and answers mathematics

Best Results From
Yahoo Answers Youtube

From Yahoo Answers

Question:I've often questioned my intelligence. And I believe there's something to IQ tests, although I'm not 100% sure they're perfectly reflective of the academic abilities they're supposed to measure. Nevertheless, I feel IQ tests provide a much more faithful measure of someone's intelligence than people. Peoples' opinions of your intelligence, I believe, are usually reflective of their own interests and they tend to be confused about the differences between intelligence and wisdom, among many other things. They tend to believe intelligent people act or are a particular way... and confuse liking a person with thinking he's intelligent.
As a kid, I was exposed to some type of toxin and my cognitive development was delayed. Nevertheless, later in my childhood I took an IQ test and scored about average to low on the verbal section (reflective of lowered crystallized intelligence), while breaking ceilings of many of the performance sections... giving me an overall IQ in the mid 120s. Since I believe my crystallized intelligence has had some time to catch up, I've often been curious about what my IQ is now that I'm an adult.
So I went and sat for a Mensa admissions exam. It was a frustrating experience. For sure, I knew how to solve basically all the problems but I spent some time second-guessing and I feel sure I must have made quite a few dumb mistakes (I know myself well). To be honest I was also a little overconfident and took the tests on an empty stomach, without much sleep, and in a general haze. But what annoyed me the most by far was the strict timing. I make a ton of mistakes when I'm in a rush because I tend not to think carefully about what I'm doing. I'm sure if you gave me a test of 10 arithmetic problems (along the lines of 5 + 2) to do in 20 seconds, and I believed it was a very important test, I would miss quite a few of them. But this does not mean I don't understand basic arithmetic. I can do advanced math (group theory, calculus of variations), but I can't do strictly timed arithmetic problems... and that shouldn't mean I'm stupid.
On the contrary, when I found out I didn't get a qualifying score for Mensa, I went and took a practice GMAT just for the heck of it (a score in the 95th %-ile qualifies you for Mensa). I more than exceeded Mensa 95th %-ile cut-off (got a 99th %-ile... there's a big difference between these percentiles in terms of IQ, a 95th %-ile in the general population means an IQ of around 125 and 99th %-ile an IQ of 137) with some time left. This is without any practice. And it's on the official GMAT practice test so it's probably pretty close to what I'd get if I took it for real. So, here's the question: do you think IQ tests place too much emphasis on time?
If you read theory on IQ, you will come across the idea that it's basically speed of processing and working memory. And I agree with this general pattern, but I think they are missing a crucial element which is something along the lines of "error rate." Think about this practically, you might have a person who has a 5% error rate. He is a fast processor and has a fairly large working memory. However, when a task starts to become complex, his errors are compounded, so he'll have to redo the complex task several times before he (by chance) gets the right answer. So it might seem like he's "slow" but in fact he's a fast processor. Nevertheless, the difference between this guy (guy A) and another guy (guy B) who has a smaller working memory and is a slower processor (but who nevertheless tests at the same IQ level) is that guy A will get more complicated ideas than guy B, because he will be able to process more complicated ideas than guy A... he'll just have to be more careful and "rethink" things more often.
I'd like your input on this "three factor" model Oh and another thing. People often cite, in defense of this idea, the fact that people that score higher on untimed IQ tests tend to get done with them more quickly. Sure, this is true, but on an untimed IQ test no one feels rushed and so people will take all the time they need and then check over their answers (and people with high "error rates" will catch their mistakes here). In this kind of situation more intelligent people will naturally "get" the easy problems faster, but if you give them only easy problems and force them to go fast, their error rates will likely increase and people who already have high error rates will start selecting all the wrong answers. Many intelligent people I've talked to complain about missing all the easy questions and getting the hard ones right. It seems like that type of thing is an artifact of our collective notion of what intelligence is. Oh and another thing. People often cite, in defense of this idea, the fact that people that score higher on untimed IQ tests tend to get done with them more quickly. Sure, this is true, but on an untimed IQ test no one feels rushed and so people will take all the time they need and then check over their answers (and people with high "error rates" will catch their mistakes here). In this kind of situation more intelligent people will naturally "get" the easy problems faster, but if you give them only easy problems and force them to go fast, their error rates will likely increase and people who already have high error rates will start selecting all the wrong answers. Many intelligent people I've talked to complain about missing all the easy questions and getting the hard ones right. It seems like that type of thing is an artifact of our collective notion of what intelligence is. Oh yeah... furthermore, just to clarify even more: Someone who's a fast processor might do (relatively) simple problems faster with say, a modest error rate of 10%. If you look at the way IQ tests are normed, that already lowers a person's IQ score. But the punchline is that fast processing people with high error-rates would learn to make up for it by being more careful and doing tests more slowly. You can't know for a fact that they're not double checking their answers... it's likely that they will do so out of habit... even if it lowers their IQ score. If you check the speed of simple calculations you will probably also find that they do them faster (and more accurately) because they double check their work and work quickly (which explains the correlation between the time taken to do simple problems)... but as problems become more complicated and involve several steps, it will take a longer time to double check and find errors. There are studies confirming timed tests measure g less.

Answers:the iq test is now a century old or more, why are we still relying on a test that is over one hundred years old when today the way that information and knowledge is shared has advanced light years in the same time span? I think the iq test is a valid and relevant test still, but the bar has been raised and the horizons broadened in the past 10-12 decades and there should be a new brainiac benchmark that could maybe include a wider range of "styles" or "influences" of intelligence factored in.

Question:Mensa tests tend to measure a limited number of constructs related to IQ. They tend to measure what's referred to as "acquired knowledge" (abbreviated Gc). Even questions that relate to reasoning skills or memory skills are largely reliant on acquired knowledge. A couple of examples of this: if you are given a question about a number sequence, and which number comes next, people who have previously been exposed to this type of problem are more likely to know how to answer it. So, it's less a measure of how to reason through the problem, and more a measure of exposure. Also, in the same situation, say the question requires you to have a working understanding of exponents (finding a number in a series requires you to deduce that each number is the cube of a sequence 1, 2, 3, 4...etc.). That is supposed to measure reasoning skills. What it actually measures is how much knowledge you have in the area of mathematics since people who have a lot of familiarity with math would be able to answer it quicker, and would be more likely to get it right with less actual reasoning skill involved. Again, the question is not measuring what it's supposed to.
So, we see that these types of IQ tests measure a lot of Gc, which is only one part of what makes up intelligence. They also might measure some quantitative reasoning (abbreviated Gq), which is related to a type of acquired knowledge in the area of math. Like Gc, this is something that anyone can learn with varied degrees of effort and practice.
What IQ tests like the mensa test cannot measure are things that are strongly associated with intelligence, such as short-term memory (which would be measured by you having to repeat increasingly complex series of information immediately after being presented the information), long-term retrieval (which would be measured by you being taught some kind of skill and then being measured on your ability to use the newly acquired skill), reaction speed (where you would be given a very short amount of time to complete as many items of a very simple task as you could), good reasoning skills (which would involve you working with items that were unrelated to other constructs such as words or numbers), and finally auditory processing (in which you would have to listen to information and work with what you've heard in some way).
Normal IQ tests don't even measure Gq, because it is so iffy whether its a measure of quantitative knowledge, working memory, or a combination of the two, and thus you can't get a reliable measure of it. Tests of achievement measure Gq, which is interesting because mensa does not allow achievement test results...ironic, really since their tests heavily rely on Gq, as well as Gc, and to some extend visual-spacial ability (Gv). They are more achievement oriented than ability oriented.
Beyond all at, real IQ tests are not multiple choice, they do not give you just one score (they actually give you scores on all the different constructs they measure), and are administered and scored in a standardized manner based on the taker's age-level. Thus your scores are based on a comparison against a norm group at the taker's age level, not against all people who have taken the test.
Since the mensa test is no more than an online IQ test taken with pencil and paper in the presence of a glorified babysitter whose only job is to make sure you are not cheating, and since the test doesn't even come close to measuring what it purports to measure, why do people put so much stock in it?
Surely, intelligent people would recognize when an organization is just trying to make money off of them...

Answers:Because they're pretty much as valid as any other form of measure of IQ. And nobody's yet devised a test which people don't get better at if they practice...which obviously a genuine IQ test shouldn't be affected by.
I agree it's just a moneymaking scheme, though. I've always said I'd bother applying when I saw a sample question I didn't consider trivial...and I'm not a genius by any means.

Question:I have scored 140 on an IQ test before, but the entire test was logical questions.
What about creative intelligence? Does that not even count as part of the IQ?
I think it does, and I'm tired of getting low IQ scores because people do not include all parts of human intelligences on tests!
Do you feel the same or different about this?
Thanks.

Answers:If you took an entire IQ battery, it would have consisted of a verbal (tests language skills...reading and writing), quantitative (mathematical) and non-verbal reasoning (picture logic). These can be graded and a score can be given.
What you seem to be looking at is the criteria for getting into what is called "Gifted and Talented". To be considered gifted, one has to have an IQ of (usually) 127 or above (140 being considered beginning genius level) AND you would have had to have turned in some portfolio work in addition to the testing. This would have been "graded" (very subjective) by a committee. Had the committee deemed that your portfolio work showed creativity, you would have been classified gifted.
There is no way to make a creativity test that can be graded objectively. Look at Picasso, for example. He's considered an artistic genius, but his work is FAR different than what is normally considered artistic. What about the poets who write nearly incomprehensible gibberish, but the work is critically acclaimed? Creativity is in the eye of the beholder, so to speak...and cannot be "graded" fairly.
However, you are correct in thinking there are many kinds of intelligence. Multiple intelligences is one theory out there, for example. It puts forth the concept that there are seven areas in which someone may be gifted.
See below for an explanation and links to taking tests that will point out your strength areas.

Question:MATHS:-
1) when we draw a cube(3D) on a 2D paper,is it still considered a 3D object? If so define the dimensions? can we say that the 3D objects we see are the representatives of the 4D objects ?Not perceived by us ?
2)Can there exist two 'n'th dimensional objects.One having circular curve and the other having a perfect straight line(with rational dimensions) and having the both 'n'th dimensional property ? can u deduce TT(pie) is rational or irrational from this ?
PHYSICS:-
1)what state of matter is fire(on flame),ATP(adenosine tri phosphate) etc ? that is can't we exactly divide the universe into matter and ant-matter ?
2)As the normal saying goes that the gravitational force near a black hole is very high that even light can't escape it ?
So form this can we deduce that light is having some particles having mass as gravity exists only when there is mass or does light having same mass of those less particles which can interact with gravity(gravitions) ?

Answers:MATH:
1). When you draw a cube on paper, it is never a 3D object. It is and always will be 2D.
2). You need to elaborate.
PHYSICS:
1). Fire is a plasma...and it fits into the "matter" category. ATP is also a form of matter, since it's made up of stuff like hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen. Also, the universe is also made up of Dark Matter, which is neither matter or antimatter.
2). Light DOES have mass, it just has no rest mass. This gets a little confusing to explain and i don't think you will understand.